A Fate Worse Than Tariffs

There's been a lot of chatter over an amendment inserted into the Waxman-Markey bill that would impose trade penalties on imports from countries that haven't set limits on greenhouse gases. Barack Obama, for one, has spoken out against it. Tyler Cowen calls it the "new Smoot-Hawley." Fair enough. On the other hand, a lot of people attacking the provision seem to be from the same school that argue that global warming is intractable because China and India won't make the requisite adjustments. This would seem to be a step towards forcing them to make the requisite adjustments.

In any case, I'm not really sure what I think of the policy. I'd want to see some more detailed analysis on its likely efficacy. But I do want to quote Paul Krugman's response to some of the knee-jerk opposition:

The truth is that there’s perfectly sound economics behind border adjustments related to cap-and-trade. The way to think about it is in terms of a well-established theory — the theory of non-economic objectives in trade policy — that owes its origins to Jagdish Bhagwati, who certainly can’t be accused of being a protectionist. The essential idea is that if you have a non-economic objective, such as self-sufficiency in food production, you should choose policy instruments to align incentives with that objective; in normal circumstances this leads to consumer or producer intervention, rarely to tariffs.

But in this case the non-economic objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, never mind their source. If you only impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from domestic sources, you give consumers no incentive to avoid purchasing products that cause emissions in other countries; as a result, you have an inefficient outcome even from a world point of view. So border adjustments here are entirely legitimate in terms of basic economics.

And they’re also probably OK under trade law. The WTO has looked at the issue, and suggests that carbon tariffs may be viewed the same way as border adjustments associated with value-added taxes. It has long been accepted that a VAT is essentially a sales tax — a tax on consumers — which for administrative reasons is collected from producers. Because it’s essentially a tax on consumers, it’s legal, and also economically efficient, to collect it on imported goods as well as domestic production; it’s a matter of leveling the playing field, not protectionism.

And the same would be true of carbon tariffs.

What’s happening here, I think, is that people are relying on what Paul Samuelson called an economic “shibboleth” — they’re relying on some slogan rather than thinking through the underlying economics. In this case the shibboleth is “free trade good, protection bad”, when what the economics really says is that incentives should reflect the marginal cost of greenhouse gases in all goods, wherever produced — which in this case happens to imply border adjustments.

I think, again, that we're in one of these situations where all else being equal, it would be better not to be mucking around with tariffs. But all else is not equal. We're triggering the largest change in the climate since the Ice Age. That may, indeed, be a fate worse than tariffs.

Related

Beijing (AFP) - China and the US agreed ambitious greenhouse gas emission targets on Wednesday, the White House said in a statement, with Beijing setting a goal for its emissions to peak "around 2030".

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Monday is announcing even steeper greenhouse gas cuts from U.S. power plants than previously expected, a challenge to the rest of the world to take serious action as a global summit to finalize a landmark climate change treaty approaches at the end of this year.

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Barack Obama will order the federal government on Thursday to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases by 40%, as the U.S. seeks to spur other nations to get serious about climate change.
Obama’s executive order will also direct the government to ramp up use of renewable energy sources to 30% of the federal government’s consumption. The White House said U.S. taxpayers could save up to $18 billion in electricity costs by reducing greenhouse gases 40 per cent over the next decade, compared to 2008 levels.

OTTAWA — Having missed a March 31 deadline to submit greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets to the United Nations, the Harper government is prodding the provinces to come up with better numbers.
But at least one province is accusing Ottawa of taking credit for climate change initiatives launched by other levels of government.

United Nations (United States) (AFP) - The largest gathering of world leaders on climate change opens at the United Nations on Tuesday amid calls for action to put the planet on course toward reversing global warming.

With his administration under pressure from environmentalists to reject the Keystone XL pipeline project, President Barack Obama plans to unveil a package of separate actions next month focused on curbing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
At closed-door fundraisers held over the past few weeks, the president has been telling Democratic party donors that he will unveil new climate proposals in July, according to people who have attended the events or been briefed.

The House bill contains a provision, inserted in the middle of the
night before Friday’s vote, which requires the president, starting in
2020, to impose a “border adjustment” — or tariff — on certain goods
from countries that do not act to limit their global warming emissions.
The president can waive the tariffs only if he receives explicit
permission from Congress to do so. The provision was added to secure
the votes of Rust Belt lawmakers who were wavering on the bill because
of fears of job losses in heavy industry.